Budget deal: Senate Republicans vote to advance bill they hate

OK, most Democrats hate the budget deal, too, but more is at stake for
Republicans. Thankfully for them, Senate rules will allow a vote for
and, then, against the bill. Huh?

By Mark SappenfieldChristian Science Monitor

The Senate on Tuesday moved the two-year budget deal announced last
week to the brink of passage. With the House having passed the bill
last week, it is now all but certain that the budget package that
virtually no one in Washington likes will soon become law.
The Senate voted to end debate on the bill Tuesday — a procedure
called cloture that requires 60 votes, or else the minority can
filibuster. The deal forged by Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin and
Sen. Partty Murray (D) of Washington passed the cloture vote, 67 to
33. The Senate is expected to formally pass the bill Wednesday in a
vote that requires only a simple majority.
The bill will fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2015
(Sept. 30, 2015, to be precise), which means Congress has spared
America from the phrase “government shutdown” for at least a year and
a half.
That, in itself, essentially encapsulates why 12 Republican senators
joined all 55 Democrats to help move forward a bill that does almost
nothing that Democrats or Republicans want — no tax reform, no
entitlement reform, no extended unemployment benefits.
“I don’t like the deal, but it’s a deal,” stated Sen. Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska, one of the Republicans to hold her nose and vote “yes”
Tuesday.
The lessons of the October government shutdown are still too raw for
Republicans, who saw the public turn on them during the shutdown,
according to polls.
But the list of Republicans who voted for and against the deal is instructive.
Among those who voted “no”: every Republican facing a potentially
competitive reelection in 2014. Apparently, “deal” is still a
four-letter word for those who fear being “primaried” by tea partyers
in 2014.
“This is a clear case of managing the vote” to protect potentially
vulnerable senators, writes Ed Morrissey on the right-leaning “Hot
Air” blog.
Among those who voted “yes”: the group of seasoned Republican senators
(not facing tough reelections) “who’ve been willing to join with
Democrats this year to continue moving legislation through the
Senate,” writes Ed O’Keefe at The Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog.
Call them the GOP’s 2013 pragmatic caucus, and they include Senator
Murkowski and Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of
Maine, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and John McCain of Arizona.
Curiously, the “yes” vote also included some surprise conservatives
who have tea party credentials, such as Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona
and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
“Defense hawks like McCain voting to end sequestration isn’t
surprising, and professional milquetoasts like Murkowski and Collins
supporting a bipartisan deal is par for the course,” writes Matt
Purple of the conservative American Spectator blog. “But Jeff Flake?
Ron Johnson? Conservative support seems to stem from a desire to avoid
another government shutdown (as Johnson acknowledged over the weekend)
and siphon all public attention onto Obamacare.”
And those who voted “yes” and “no”? Yes, that’s right. The Senate’s
arcane rules allow senators to vote “yes” to move a bill past the
60-vote threshold for cloture, then vote against the final bill,
knowing it can still pass with a simple majority.
Senators Alexander and Flake are expected to flip their “yes” votes
Tuesday for “no” votes Wednesday, as is Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) of
Georgia.
As Mr. O’Keefe of “The Fix”: notes: “It’s one of the beauties of
serving in the Senate — senators can tell voters that they voted for
congressional productivity — something Americans are desperately
seeking — but still vote against the actual proposal.”

The Christian Science Monitor is an international news organization that delivers thoughtful, global coverage. The Monitor is global, both in practice and in spirit. The Las Vegas Tribune features a variety of contributor from the Christian Science Monitor.

Donations

LasVegasTribune.com has a handful of honest hardworking editors and researchers. We are working diligently to bring you the truth no matter the cost. We have no membership fees and have no plans for it in the future. We rely on the compassion and dedication of our faithful volunteers and donations from our loyal readers.

Please donate as much as you feel comfortable. We have multiple donation values for your convenience as well as donation you can enter your own value.

We thank you for your support, and please only donate what you can afford.